Good riddance – SB 3442 is dead!

We have long supported the promulgation of reusable bags and containers, and we encourage people to eschew and reduce the consumption of single-use plastic items.  We've helped raise awareness of the environmental and economic impacts of plastic litter, and we've supported a great number of policies that try to address these issues head on.

Well over 100 jurisdictions across the United States, and even 11 entire nations have banned single-use plastic bags.

Naturally, certain industry interests are not pleased by these bag bans, and they do everything in their power to fight the bans we're trying to implement.  They also dig in deep with a new tactic recently.  Instead of trying to stomp out bans as they begin to sprout, they are now trying to convince lawmakers just to prohibit bans.

"Huh?  What?", you say?

Illinois Senate Bill (SB) 3442 was a prime example.  Earlier this year, SB 3442 snuck through the Illinois General Assembly as a wolf in sheep's clothing.  Disguised as a pro-environment recycling bill, SB 3442 did nothing in terms of increasing recycling efforts of plastic bags (which doesn't work anyway).  However the real bite to this bill was that it sought to preempt "home rule", and would have specifically prohibited municipalities from not only banning single-use plastic bags, but would have also prevented municipalities from implementing their own recycling programs.

Illinois residents use more than 4.8 billion single-use plastic bags every year.  The State of Illinois spends more than $9 Million annually for litter cleanup efforts.  As plastic bags comprise an inordinate percentage of the litter stream by weight, they are disproportionately responsible for those costs.  Moreover, this figure does not include any of the energy costs associated with producing single-use bags, nor does it consider any of the negative environmental, economic, and public health costs associated with single-use bag litter.

"urban tumbleweed" yesterday in Chicago.
Photo ©2012 Christopher Chin

Plastic bags are a costly, environmentally damaging, and easily preventable source of litter and pollution.  Light and aerodynamic, plastic bags are uniquely litter-prone even when properly disposed of, and pose a serious threat to the environment and wildlife in our streams, waterways, lakes, and oceans.  Plastic bags never truly disappear in these environments; even when they are no longer visible to the naked eye, plastic bags have merely photo-degraded into tiny particles that absorb toxins and contaminate our food chain and water and soil quality.  Plastic bags also make up a disproportionate share of the litter stream, harming storm water systems, increasing cleanup costs for local agencies, and eating away at taxpayer dollars.

Recycling of plastic bags, while seemingly well intentioned, would accomplish nothing.  

A similar 2006 California recycling policy failed.  Despite the creation of a statewide collection infrastructure for plastic bags, a mere THREE percent (3%) of plastic bags have been recycled.  Plastic bag recycling is neither practical nor cost effective.  The market scrap price for recycled plastic comes nowhere close to covering the costs of collecting, transporting, and handling the bags.  Nationally, the US EPA shows a 4.3% recycling rate for HDPE plastic bags and film combined. 

Recycling is not the answer.  Despite efforts to expand recycling programs, in other States and municipalities around the world, the recycling rate of single-use plastic bags remains around 5%.  The remainder of these bags end up in our landfills or as litter, clogging storm drain systems, and making their way to our waterways and ocean.  It is estimated that 60–80% of all marine debris, and 90% of floating debris is plastic.  Plastic lasts for hundreds of years in our environment and may never biodegrade in the ocean.  As a result, it poses a persistent threat to wildlife.  At least 267 species worldwide have been impacted by plastic in our oceans, including plastic bags. 

SB 3442 would have set a horrible precedent.  We appealed to the Governor of Illinois, Pat Quinn, to veto the bill.  I had the opportunity to meet Governor Quinn when he signed our shark fin bill (HB4119) into law, and in speaking with him, it was immediately apparent that this man wanted to do the right thing.

Since SB 3442 was marked as having fiscal impact, the Illinois General Assembly required a 3/5 vote to pass both chambers.  How much of a vote would be required to override the governor's veto?  3/5.  Yikes!  Yes, the vote was presumably already there, and the Governor was sticking his neck out for us.

SB 3442 was a controversial bill in both chambers of the General Assembly, and found support mostly as a result of its spurious language.  Just as we were able to convince inland legislators and constituents of the importance of shark conservation, we were confident we could help illuminate the true intentions of this deceptive bill.  We assured the Governor that we could provide the support necessary to sustain  his veto.

12-year old Abby Goldberg from Grayslake, Illinois started a Change.org petition to encourage the Governor to veto SB 3442, and in the end, she was able to present Governor Quinn with more than 170,000 signatures from around the world.  He graciously accepted them at a press conference, and this also helped shed more light on the issue.

On 26 August, Governor Quinn officially rejected SB 3442, much to our relief!  But remember, that 3/5 vote was still looming, and you know that the industry was going to try to rally.  Knowing that legislators generally only alter their positions for a very good reason, we had our work cut out for us.

Well, as they usually do, truth and awareness usually prevail, and we're pleased to say that SB 3442 is now officially dead!  The bill's author, Senator Terry Link (D-Lincolnshire), filed a motion to override the Governor's veto, and the Senate rejected that yesterday afternoon.

Thank you, Governor Quinn, for doing the right thing, for believing in us, and for having the political courage to follow your convictions.  Thank you, Abby for starting your Change.org petition, and for bringing your voice and so many others into the mix.  And thank YOU, all of our supporters, for your phone calls, e-mail messages, and for sharing our calls-to-action to raise awareness of this issue and provide the support necessary to make this happen.

We could not have done this without you.

Help the EPA document the TRUE state of the environment

A few weekends ago, I was lucky enough to help my friend, Christopher Chin (executive director and founder of the Center for Oceanic Awareness, Research and Education) represent his nonprofit at the Shark Days event at the Monterey Bay Aquarium.  One of my favorite things about volunteering at these types of events (whether it be for COARE or for Save Our Shores, as I volunteer with both of them pretty regularly) is getting to interact with such a huge variety of people; seasoned ocean advocates, young children, or tourists who may not have much experience in conservation issues but are eager to learn more.  I have always come away from these experiences feeling optimistic about the myriad of challenges the conservation movement faces, and every time I’ve made contacts that I know will be meaningful to my future involvement in future efforts.

Shark Days at the Monterey Bay Aquarium was no different; among the many people I talked to, I spent some time speaking with an employee from the Environmental Protection Agency about a project they’re working on to document the true state of the environment all around the world.  The project, called the State of the Environment Photo Project, is based on a similar one they conducted 40 years ago called Documerica, which had the goal of documenting environmental problems and every day life across America by asking the public to submit photos.  To me, it seems like an exciting way to involve the public in bringing attention to the diverse environmental concerns facing different locations around the world. 

One concern that the employee had mentioned was that people were sending in nothing but GOOD pictures.  Of course, the world is a beautiful place, and the EPA certainly wants to recognize all the wonders there are to behold through this project.  However, if the submitted photographs are only showing the beautiful things and ignoring the bad, it’s a pretty inaccurate view of the state of the environment.  I happen to know for a fact that a number of COARE and SOS supporters have taken stirring photographs that could be invaluable contributions to the project (I know because I’ve seen some of them myself).  The EPA is going to pick a number of photos from the submissions to exhibit across the country once the project is over. I hope that this project may be a way to reach an entirely new audience; if enough people send in pictures showing plastic pollution, threats to marine life, or other depictions of the environmental challenges we fight against, it’s possible that we can motivate them to get involved.

A photo I submitted of animals eating trash left on the beach.
Taken July 5 morning in Santa Cruz, CA

So, are you interested in helping the EPA document the true state of our environment, as things really are, and hopefully motivating more people to get involved in conservation efforts?  The EPA will pick a number of photographs out of the submissions to be featured on their webpage, their Facebook page, and to be exhibited all across the country after the project ends. The information you need to participate, including ideas for what to post, can be found on the project’s website here and their Flickr page here.

An Open Letter to Toby Keith and His Disposable Red Cup

This is a cross-post from the Save Our Shores blog, Into the Blue.

Dear Mr. Keith,

When I first heard your new song, “Red Solo Cup”, I thought it couldn’t possibly be real, but I was unfortunately mistaken. I understand that it’s supposed to be funny; I get where you were trying to go with it (an ode to your favorite beer receptacle), I really do. That said, there are so many things wrong with this song, I’m having a hard time deciding where to begin. I would like to preface this letter by saying I like beer and fun maybe even as much as you do, but in spite of my affinity for a good time, I still have some issues with this song that I’m not able to excuse right off the bat.

As someone who spends quite a lot of time picking up trash at the beaches and has seen firsthand the damage single-use items can cause, I have to object to your love affair with plastic.

Plastic, even in the form of a beer-holding receptacle, is NOT your friend (although the plastic industry may like you to think it is). It’s not friends with the ocean, either, or with wildlife. Contrary to your lyrics, red solo cups are not decomposable in 14 years (in fact, they can take hundreds of years to decompose completely). Plastic never goes away; it only breaks down into smaller pieces that absorb toxic chemicals, are ingested by wildlife, and enter the food chain (ever heard of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, anyone?).

And I’m guessing you also didn’t know that the state of California alone spends around $72 million per year to collect and dispose of one-time use disposable cups (*ahem*, red solo cups) and bags? I know that political correctness isn’t exactly your thing, Mr. Keith, but I sincerely hope you weren't aware of these facts when you wrote this song. After all, I can’t imagine that you would encourage people to purchase and use items that will directly harm wildlife and the health of our environment… Just check out the stomach contents of this bird that died after consuming tiny pieces of plastic that came from sources like your red solo cup.

Although I know it wasn't your intent to promote unnecessary plastic use at the expense of the oceans, that’s exactly what you've ended up doing. I think we’d both agree that you’re no expert on the decomposition rates of plastic, but your fans are still going to take your word for it.

I’m trying not to think about how many Toby Keith fans are going to think of your song the next time they go shopping for their “beer receptacles”… but since your video is averaging around 100,000 views a day on YouTube, the number is going to be very high (and I mean panic-attack inducing high). Your song, which was intended to be fun and silly, has potentially influenced people to make a harmful and dangerous choice.

I would like to humbly suggest that in the future, you be aware of the far-reaching (and unintentional) effects that your lyrics can have. Your fame gives you a unique responsibility (and opportunity!) to have a wide-reaching influence. By doing just a little more research and being a tiny bit more attentive to the message you’re sending, a song like this could end up sending a positive message about using less plastic while still shining a spotlight on your fun-loving side; the proverbial “kill-two-birds-with-one-stone,” if you will. I mean, red solo cups aren’t even all that great! Reusable cups are way, way better (and they even come in red)!

I hope you will join me in reducing plastic use by becoming a part of the solution!

Signed,

Sara Cannon

Intern at Save Our Shores

Plastic-wrapped feet

It always warms my heart when I see people making use of reusable mugs and containers, and I'm also grateful when stores promote their use.  Those who have followed us for a while, or who know me personally, may know that I've had my share of arguments with some Starbuck's franchises about reusable mugs.  While that's a discussion worthy of its own rant blog, suffice it to say that I take issue when an establishment refuses to fill your reusable mug, but will happily sell you a new one of their own.

Speaking of Starbuck's, I was in New York City this past weekend for the Our World-Underwater Scholarship Society awards and presentations, and on my way back home, I noticed a lovely display of mugs at Starbuck's as I passed through Terminal 3 at the JFK airport yesterday.

Wall of mugs at JFK
Photo ©2011 Christopher Chin

"shrink your footprint"?
photo ©2011 Christopher Chin

When I was younger, my Crayola 64 box of crayons featured colors like burnt sienna and marigold.  Future versions of this iconic boxed palette may likely include something along the lines of "eco-green", so that young would-be designers would know what colors go best with a campaign intended to give the impression of environmental awareness.

I glanced towards the counter, a mere three feet from the wall of

plastic-wrapped toothpicks at restaurant in Las Vegas
Photo ©2010 Christopher Chin

mugs offering to "shrink your footprint", and I saw something I'd never before even imagined.  I was bewildered and looked more closely as I tried to comprehend the hypocrisy before me.

While I'll happily complain about plastic-wrapped straws, plastic-wrapped plastic utensils, or even individually wrapped toothpicks, I never thought I'd see apples choking beneath a layer of plastic film.

Starbuck's counter at JFK Terminal 3
Photo ©2011 Christopher Chin

As I stood in disbelief and wavered between stupefaction and anger, I wondered whose bright idea this was.  There was something inherently asinine about that, and I couldn't quite put my finger on it at first.  Eventually, I decided that it is because apples naturally have a resilient and washable skin.  Wrapping an apple in plastic wrap is just wasteful and silly.  It's akin to purchasing a reusable bag like the ChicoBag, and having the checkout clerk try to put it into a single-use plastic bag.  "Um... excuse me... I don't think I need a bag for my bag.  Thanks."

My best guess is that this Starbuck's somehow thinks that the apples may appear cleaner or more sanitary if they are wrapped in plastic.  I'm not sure about you, but I'm guessing that most people will probably still wash the apple after they unwrapped it.  They would probably at least take a napkin to it, or rub it on their shirt or pant leg.  Either of which is what most people do with apples that are not [gasp] wrapped in plastic.

If you buy one of those apples, I dare you to just unwrap it and eat it.  I'll bet that every intuition in your body will urge you to wash it before you sink your teeth into it.

plastic-wrapped apples
Photo ©2011 Christopher Chin

Better yet, just believe me and DON'T buy that stupid plastic-wrapped apple.  If someone is keeping track (as they probably are), then buying one of those things will validate their idiocy.  Vote with your wallet, send a message, and don't buy that plastic-wrapped apple.  If we exercise our choices this way, they'll see that the excessive waste actually causes a reduction sales.

But it's not just plastic-wrapped apples you need to keep an eye out for; we should be expressing our choices every time we purchase something.  If you have a choice between a simply presented item and a similar item which is overpackaged, we hope you'll send the right message by choosing to avoid the latter.

As for the Starbuck's at JFK, I just thought of another reason for the plastic wrap.... Perhaps they thought we could reduce our "footprint" by wrapping our feet in plastic.

Now that's a water fountain!

One of the keys to comfortable travel is to stay well hydrated. Most savvy travelers know this and drink plenty of water while on the road and inflight.

Since increased security measures have been put into place at most major airports around the world forbidding the transportation of outside liquids in aircraft cabins, most people have turned to bottled water, which they are forced to purchase after passing through airport security.

However, as I'm sure you're aware, anything purchased in the "sterile" (i.e., "secure") area of the airport is significantly more expensive than its pre-screened counterparts. A simple solution is to bring an empty reusable water bottle or reusable mug through security and then fill it on the other side. Sometimes, however, water fountains produce a only a mere trickle, and even when they're working at full pressure, the bottle must usually be held at a sub-optimal angle and can only be filled partially.

I've sometimes resorted to bringing my water bottle to the restroom to fill it in the sink. Ahhh... automatic faucets. One problem with automatic faucets, such as those commonly found in airport restrooms, is that they only produce one temperature of water. It's nice to have warm water to wash one's hands, but the idea of filling my bottle or mug with tepid water just doesn't appeal.

Global Tap fountain at SFO
Photo ©2011 Christopher Chin

If only there was a faucet-like fountain from which I could fill my water bottle or beverage container. . . .


Much to my surprise and excitement, I've found just the thing! Just the other day, as I was returning from the Dive and Travel Expo in Tacoma, I found a new Global Tap fountain in the International Terminal of San Francisco International Airport (SFO).

Traveler refilling a plastic water bottle
Photo ©2011 Christopher Chin

What I especially like about this is that it promotes re-use. Even if you don't have an aluminum bottle or reusable mug, you can reuse almost any other container. Juice bottles, soft drinks, and even single-use water bottles can all be RE-used. Almost any container can be used to hold water.

In the few short minutes that I spent admiring the Global Tap fountain, three people made use of it, including one who refilled her Costco brand plastic water bottle.

Lindsay McMahon refilling her Sigg bottle
Photo ©2011 Christopher Chin

Yet another of those three, Lindsay McMahon, stopped to chat with me. She is a frequent traveler, and is proud that her Sigg bottle has been all around the world. She raised an interesting point during our conversation, and estimates that over the years she has saved thousands of dollars by reusing her water bottle instead of purchasing bottled water.

It's always nice when doing the right thing is easy on the wallet as well as the planet. So, save yourself a few dollars, save yourself some time, and forgo the single-use bottle.